Abortion: It’s a choice that if left
unrepented can make your life a
living hell that never ends.
Posted on 09/14/2004 2:12:44 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
Abortion: It’s a choice that if left
unrepented can make your life a
living hell that never ends.
It's way past time for you to tone down your remarks.
Beyond horrible. At least the murderers at the school in Beslan weren't pretending that they were assisting anyone's mental health.
The murder of babies as described in the article is due to selfishness being promoted as a virtue and a good reason d'etre. Add to the general self-centeredness the normalization of what used to be called "illicit sex" and voila - dead babies.
When sex is held to be only permissable within the bonds of holy matrimony, and family loyalty, responsibility and unconditional love are held to be of much more worth than selfish pleasure, there are very few dead babies. With or without laws.
Of course, I am 100% in support of overturning RvW.
I would have to say yes.
http://www.priestsforlife.org is an international effort with contacts in most every major city in America. They have 60 full time employees, and are constantly recieving info from parishes/dioceses across the country.
Sadly they serve at the discretion of the bishops and must tread lightly so as not to cross the libs.
This article may interest you...
http://www.olrl.org/misc/respect.shtml
I don't know if it's possible to do a kidney transplant in Potter's syndrome.
For destroyed kidneys from hydronephrosis, you can shunt them in utero (Senator Santorum's wife had the surgery done to try to save her child...alas, she developed infection and the child died).
Is the in utero shunt a new procedure?
My 2 year old has severe hydronephrosis. His right kidney had atrophied to non-existance and was born with perhaps 1/3 of his left kidney, all due to a post ureter valve blockage. His condition was known perhaps halfway through the pregnancy. It has been explained to me that this was the bare minimum necessary kidney function. After he was born (less than a week after relese from the hospital) he was operated on to remove the blockage. He has been on a steady supply of antibiotics and bladder wall softener since then. Fortunatley he is showing signs of gaining some kidney function with some minor reduction of the hydronephrosis.
The in utero shunt was never offered as an option to us. Is it new, too risky, not covered by insurance, or were my doctors at fault for not offering this option?
Then what you witnessed was malpractice, not abortion... unless you suspect the whole thing was a setup to skirt around an abortion prohibition, which would be a pretty strong charge to make.
At the same source, you will find Jill Stanek's response....
Domenico,
I wrote the story you are disparaging. My column was absolutely true. In response to your post:
1) I said in my column we were talking about babies with fatal handicaps. What difference does listing a specific handicap make? What is your point?
2) These handicapped babies are delivered 15-17 weeks early specifically so they will die 15-17 weeks earlier than if they had been left alone. The rationale is for a mother’s “mental health” and, as Fr. O’Callahan of Loyola said, “to ward off the physical complications of bringing to term a child who is not going to live anyway.”
“Ward off.” There is no health problem. There is just a concern about a potential health problem. This is a smoke screen to make what they’re doing more tolerable. 99% of the time it would be ridiculous to assert that handicapped babies somehow make their mothers sick, just as it would be ridiculous to assert healthy babies make their mothers sick. Think about it. How can a baby with no brain make her mother sick?
3) You are wrong as to the reason these babies die. They die at the hand of men. Had they been left alone and delivered naturally, they would have died naturally. in God’s time.
These handicapped babies are being euthanized. The analogy is identical to hospice. Are you saying you would agree to deprive your dying grandmother of oxygen, food, and hydration to speed up her death? That is exactly what is being done to these babies.
4) The purpose of the delivery is indeed to kill the child. Why else? It is NOT misleading to call this procedure an abortion. The definition of abortion is: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, rsulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus,” according to Webster’s.
Absolutley agreed. You are 100% correct!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.